Chapter 22 · Topic 22.3 · Prelims + Mains3 of 4
Elections: Corrupt practices and election disputes
Key points
- Election petition: to the High Court within 45 days (Sections 80–81, RP Act, 1951); grounds in Section 100; appeal to SC within 30 days (Section 116A).
- Corrupt practices (Section 123): bribery, undue influence, appeals on religion or caste, booth capturing. Lok Prahari (2018): hiding assets = undue influence; Krishnamoorthy (2015): hiding criminal cases.
- Prelims 2012: the CEC does not decide election disputes (d).
- ONOE: simultaneous until 1967; Law Commission 170th report (1999), parliamentary committee (2015), Kovind committee (March 2024); 129th Amendment Bill, 2024 sent to a JPC.
11 PYQs 2012–2026
Prelims box: facts and traps
- NOTA 2013; Lily Thomas 2013; electoral bonds struck down 2024.
Corrupt practices and election disputes
Like a disputed cricket result: the players do not decide it; an appeal goes to the match referee.
Mains 2022 asked for the procedures to decide disputes arising out of the election of a Member of Parliament or State Legislature.
- An election petition goes to the High Court within 45 days of the result (Sections 80–81, RP Act, 1951).
- Grounds to declare an election void (Section 100): lack of qualification, corrupt practice, improper rejection of a nomination, improper acceptance or refusal of votes.
- Appeal lies to the Supreme Court within 30 days (Section 116A).
- In Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain (1975), the Allahabad High Court had voided her election for corrupt practices.
Discuss the procedures to decide the disputes arising out of the election of a Member of the Parliament or State Legislature under The Representation of the People Act, 1951. What are the grounds on which the election of any returned candidate may be declared void? What remedy is available to the aggrieved party against the decision? Refer to the case laws.
Mains 2025: discuss ‘corrupt practices’ under the RP Act, 1951, and whether a disproportionate increase in assets would constitute ‘undue influence’ and so a corrupt practice.
- Section 123 lists bribery, undue influence, appeals on religion, caste or community, booth capturing, and so on.
- In Lok Prahari v Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court held that non-disclosure of the assets and sources of income of candidates and their associates is undue influence.
- Earlier, in Krishnamoorthy (2015), hiding criminal cases was treated the same way.
Discuss the ‘corrupt practices’ for the purpose of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Analyze whether the increase in the assets of the legislators and/or their associates, disproportionate to their known sources of income, would constitute ‘undue influence’ and consequently a corrupt practice.
Prelims 2012 claimed: It is within the purview of the Chief Election Commissioner to adjudicate the election disputes. Wrong: that is for the High Court. All three statements were wrong, option (d).
Consider the following statements : 1. Union Territories are not represented in the Rajya Sabha. 2. It is within the purview of the Chief Election Commissioner to adjudicate the election disputes. 3. According to the Constitution of India, the Parliament consists of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha only. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- 1 only
- 2 and 3
- 1 and 3
- None
Show answer
Answer: (d) · UPSC official key
What UPSC asks: Prelims: who decides disputes (2012). Mains: election petitions (2022); corrupt practices (2025). Next likely angle: disclosure cases.
Electoral reforms and One Nation One Election
Mains 2024 asked about electoral reforms suggested by committees, with particular reference to the “one nation – one election” principle.
- Elections were simultaneous until 1967.
- The Law Commission (170th report, 1999), a parliamentary committee (2015) and the High-Level Committee chaired by Ram Nath Kovind (report, March 2024) backed bringing them back.
- The Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024 was sent to a Joint Parliamentary Committee.
Mains 2017 put the trade-off: it will limit the amount of time and money spent in electioneering, but may reduce the government’s accountability to the people.
Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggested by various committees with particular reference to “one nation – one election” principle.
‘Simultaneous election to the Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies will limit the amount of time and money spent in electioneering but it will reduce the government’s accountability to the people.’ Discuss.
Mains 2017 also noted that the Election Commission of India proposed electoral reforms in 2016:
- making bribery of voters a cognizable offence (police can arrest without a warrant);
- criminalising paid news and false affidavits;
- power to de-register inactive parties;
- a totaliser to count votes from several booths together;
- caps on party spending.
Other landmarks: disclosure of assets and crimes (ADR, 2002), disqualification on conviction (Lily Thomas, 2013), NOTA (2013), and the striking down of electoral bonds (2024).
To enhance the quality of democracy in India the Election Commission of India has proposed electoral reforms in 2016. What are the suggested reforms and how far are they significant to make democracy successful?
What UPSC asks: Prelims: NOTA, electoral bonds. Mains: ONOE (2024, 2017); ECI’s 2016 reforms (2017). Next likely angle: 129th Amendment Bill and JPC.
→ Constitutional Bodies Composition and independence of the Election Commission.
Mains box: analysis and answer points
- 2022: dispute procedure. 2025: assets and undue influence. 2024, 2017: ONOE; ECI's 2016 reforms.
Practice
Prelims PYQs on this topic (8)
Consider the following statements :
- 1. Union Territories are not represented in the Rajya Sabha.
- 2. It is within the purview of the Chief Election Commissioner to adjudicate the election disputes.
- 3. According to the Constitution of India, the Parliament consists of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha only.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer (d) & explanation
None of the statements is correct (d). Statement 1 is wrong: Delhi, Puducherry and Jammu and Kashmir send members to the Rajya Sabha, elected by their legislative assemblies. Statement 2 is wrong: election disputes are decided by the High Courts through election petitions, with appeal to the Supreme Court; the Election Commission does not adjudicate them. Statement 3 is wrong: under Article 79, Parliament consists of the President and the two Houses. So (a), (b) and (c) fail.
Notice the details: Rajya Sabha has 245 seats, 233 elected and 12 nominated by the President. Disputes over the President's and Vice-President's elections go straight to the Supreme Court (Article 71). Trap: the President is part of Parliament though not a member of either House.
Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.
Consider the following statements :
- 1. If the election of the President of India is declared void by the Supreme Court of India, all acts done by him/her in the performance of duties of his/her office of President before the date of decision become invalid.
- 2. Election for the post of the President of India can be postponed on the ground that some Legislative Assemblies have been dissolved and elections are yet to take place.
- 3. When a Bill is presented to the President of India, the Constitution prescribes time limits within which he/she has to declare his/her assent.
How many of the above statements are correct?
Answer (d) & explanation
None of the statements is correct (d). Statement 1 is wrong: Article 71(2) says acts done by the President before the election is declared void stay valid. Statement 2 is wrong: the election cannot be put off because some Assemblies stand dissolved, and under Article 71(4) the poll cannot be questioned on that ground. Statement 3 is wrong: Article 111 sets no time limit for assent. The President may give assent, withhold it, or return a non-money Bill once.
Notice the recent debate. In 2025, a Supreme Court bench set timelines for Governors in a Tamil Nadu case, but on a Presidential Reference later that year, a Constitution Bench held that courts cannot impose such fixed timelines. This is why people speak of the President's pocket veto.
"None" feels risky, so students force one statement to be true. Write T or F against each line first, then trust the count.
Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.
Consider the following statements in respect of election to the President of India :
- 1. The members nominated to either House of the Parliament or the Legislative Assemblies of States are also eligible to be included in the Electoral College.
- 2. Higher the number of elective Assembly seats, higher is the value of vote of each MLA of that State.
- 3. The value of vote of each MLA of Madhya Pradesh is greater than that of Kerala.
- 4. The value of vote of each MLA of Puducherry is higher than that of Arunachal Pradesh because the ratio of total population to total number of elective seats in Puducherry is greater as compared to Arunachal Pradesh.
How many of the above statements are correct?
Answer (a) & explanation
Only statement 4 is correct (a). Statement 1 is wrong: only elected members of Parliament and of State Assemblies, including Delhi and Puducherry, vote; nominated members are left out. Statement 2 is wrong: an MLA's vote value is the State's 1971 population divided by its elected seats, then by 1,000, so more seats for the same population means a lower value. Statement 3 is wrong: a Kerala MLA's vote (152) is worth more than a Madhya Pradesh MLA's (131). Statement 4 is right: Puducherry's value (16) is higher than Arunachal's (8), for the reason given.
Notice that Uttar Pradesh has the highest value, 208, and Sikkim the lowest, 7. An MP's vote is the total value of all MLAs divided by the number of elected MPs, about 700.
statement 2 sounds logical but has the ratio upside down. Population is on top, seats below.
Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.
With reference to Deputy Speaker of Lok Sabha, consider the following statements :
- 1. As per the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, the election of Deputy Speaker shall be held on such date as the Speaker may fix.
- 2. There is a mandatory provision that the election of a candidate as Deputy Speaker of Lok Sabha shall be from either the principal opposition party or the ruling party.
- 3. The Deputy Speaker has the same power as of the Speaker when presiding over the sitting of the House and no appeal lies against his rulings.
- 4. The well established parliamentary practice regarding the appointment of Deputy Speaker is that the motion is moved by the Speaker and duly seconded by the Prime Minister.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Answer (a) & explanation
Statements 1 and 3 are correct (a). Statement 1 is right: under Rule 8 of the Lok Sabha's Rules of Procedure, the election of the Deputy Speaker is held on a date the Speaker fixes. Statement 2 is wrong: no rule ties the post to the opposition or the ruling party; giving it to the opposition is only a custom. Statement 3 is right: when presiding, the Deputy Speaker has the Speaker's full powers, and no appeal lies against his rulings. Statement 4 is wrong: the motion is moved by a member, not by the Speaker.
Notice that Article 93 says the Lok Sabha "shall" choose a Deputy Speaker, yet the post stayed vacant through the whole 17th Lok Sabha (2019–24). The Deputy Speaker sends any resignation to the Speaker.
"mandatory provision" for what is only a convention.
Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.
Consider the following statements :
- 1. In India, there is no law restricting the candidates from contesting in one Lok Sabha election from three constituencies.
- 2. In 1991 Lok Sabha Election, Shri Devi Lal contested from three Lok Sabha constituencies.
- 3. As per the existing rules, if a candidate contests in one Lok Sabha election from many constituencies, his/her party should bear the cost of bye-elections to the constituencies vacated by him/her in the event of him/her winning in all the constituencies.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
No official answer (question dropped) & notes
UPSC dropped this question from evaluation, so no answer was scored. The likely trouble was statement 2: Devi Lal did contest from three Lok Sabha seats in 1991 (Sikar, Rohtak and Ferozepur), but the wording was disputed. The current law is clear. Statement 1 is wrong: since 1996, Section 33(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 lets a candidate contest from at most two constituencies. Statement 3 is wrong: no rule makes the party pay for bye-elections; the Election Commission has only suggested that the candidate pay.
Notice that a winner of two seats must quit one within 14 days under Section 70. Before 1996, there was no limit on the number of seats.
UPSC did not evaluate this question, so no official answer exists. Use it for practice only.
UPSC dropped this question from evaluation; there is no official answer.
Consider the following statements :
- 1. According to the Constitution of India, a person who is eligible to vote can be made a minister in a State for six months even if he/she is not a member of the Legislature of that State.
- 2. According to the Representation of People Act, 1951, a person convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for five years is permanently disqualified from contesting an election even after his release from prison.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer (d) & explanation
Neither statement is correct (d). Statement 1 is wrong because Article 164(4) lets a non-member be a State minister for six months, but that person must be qualified to become an MLA. That requires a minimum age of 25, not just being a voter, who can be 18. Statement 2 is wrong because, under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, a person sentenced to two years or more is disqualified from the date of conviction for the period of the sentence plus six years after release, not permanently.
In Lily Thomas (2013), the Court removed the protection that let sitting MPs and MLAs keep their seats while appealing. Notice the 2025 debate on a lifetime ban for convicted politicians, which the Centre opposed.
"eligible to vote" (age 18) slipped in for "qualified to be a member" (age 25).
Answer as per the official UPSC answer key.
Mains PYQs on this topic (3)
- UPSC Mains 2025 · GS Paper II · Q1Discuss the ‘corrupt practices’ for the purpose of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Analyze whether the increase in the assets of the legislators and/or their associates, disproportionate to their known source…How to approach: Intro: Section 123 and its effect (election void under s.100). Body: the list; the asset question with the Supreme Court's view; limits. Conclusion: need for a…
- UPSC Mains 2026 · GS Paper II · Q4Is the right to vote a fundamental right? Discuss the position of the Election Commission of India while undertaking the revision of electoral rolls. Can it also examine the question of citizenship of voters?How to approach: Intro: Article 326 and adult suffrage. Body: case law on the nature of the right; legal basis of roll revision (Article 324, RP Act 1950); the citizenship quest…
- UPSC Mains 2024 · GS Paper II · Q1Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggested by various committees with particular reference to “one nation — one election” principle.How to approach: Intro: Free and fair elections are part of the basic structure. Body: (1) Committees; (2) Case for ONOE; (3) Concerns. Conclusion: ONOE needs wide consensus. Re…
Write an answer
In 150 words, explain the significance of Elections with one recent example.
Flashcards (6)
Where is an election petition filed?
The High Court, within 45 days.
Which section lists corrupt practices?
Section 123 of the RP Act, 1951.
Which case linked non-disclosure of assets
to undue influence? Lok Prahari v Union of India (2018).
Who chaired the High-Level Committee on
simultaneous elections? Ram Nath Kovind (report, March 2024).
When were electoral bonds struck down?
February 2024 (ADR v Union of India).
Which case introduced NOTA?
PUCL v Union of India (2013).
Read more: related explainers
- Election Commission of India (Article 324): Composition, 2023 Appointment Law, Powers, Model Code and Reforms
- Rajya Sabha (Council of States): Composition, Election, Special Powers and the Debate on its Role
- President of India (Articles 52-78): Election, Impeachment, Veto, Pardon, Ordinance and Discretion
In the news
- 24 Oct 2026Any voter can prosecute a candidate for a false affidavit: Supreme Court on Section 125A of the RP Act
- 24 Oct 2026Legislative Council polls in four States: why only six States have a second chamber
- 23 Oct 2026Election Commissioners’ letters to the Cabinet Secretary: what the RTI reply reveals about the ECI
- 26 Sep 2026ECI eases SIR verification: BLOs to collect documents at home, hearings online only in exceptional cases
Next topic · 22.4 →Elections: One Nation One ElectionSyllabus: GS-II · Salient features of the Representation of People’s Act.